RAJNI NANDA Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, petitioner-Dr. Rajni Nanda has sought quashing of communication dated 12.09.2017 (Annexure P-12) by respondent No.2 rejecting her candidature and with a further prayer to declare the petitioner eligible and to permit her to participate in the viva voce for the post of Additional District Judge. FACTS

(2.) The petitioner is having qualification of B.Com (Hons), LL.B, LL.M, UGC Net Qualified and Ph.D in law and was thus, eligible for being considered for the post of Additional District Judge. She was appointed as Assistant Professor in Law at Swami Sarwa Nand Giri Regional Center, Hoshiarpur against vacant post on purely temporary basis, vide appointed letter dated 10.09.2010. She served as such till 01.12.2014. Vide notification No.92 dated 16.07.2015, 10 posts of Haryana Superior Judicial Services by way of direct recruitment were notified. She did not apply pursuant to the said notification, but then respondents issued a corrigendum dated 17.08.2016 postponing the main examination and inviting of publication. Having noticed the said corrigendum, the petitioner submitted her application dated 09.09.2016 received on 12.09.2016 by the office of respondent No.2. Thereafter, she noticed on 12.10.2016, a list of rejected applications and the name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.9 in the said list and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, it was mentioned that there was gap in experience which was required to be explained. She accordingly, submitted an affidavit (Annexure P-5) explaining the gap. Respondent No.2, thereafter, on 24.12.2016 issued a list of candidates who were allowed to appear provisionally in the written exam that was scheduled to be held on 10.02.2017 and she was named at Sr. No.316. The petitioner was allowed to appear for written examination. Thereafter, on 01.02.2017, a notice was issued by respondent No.2 for submission of certain documents on or before 21.03.2017 for determining the eligibility under clause 2(bb) of the notification dated 16.07.2015. It was mentioned in the notice that in-service candidates who have completed 3 years service and are otherwise eligible are exempted from submitting the income tax returns and list of number of court cases. The petitioner had submitted an affidavit dated 16.03.2017 (Annexure P-9) regarding list of cases. The petitioner was declared successful, but it was mentioned that the candidates who were found eligible were subject to removal of certain discrepancies. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, discrepancy was noted at Sr. No.1181 stating therein that ITRs showing Gross Professional Income of L 5 lakhs or more for three years and data regarding requisite number of court cases for the three years preceding to application was required to be furnished. The petitioner however, relied on the stipulation contained in the notice dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure P- 8) wherein, in Para 3, it was mentioned that in-service candidates who have completed 3 years' service and are are otherwise eligible, are exempted from submitting the income tax returns and lists of number of court cases. The petitioner, then found that her candidature was rejected for non-submission of the required information. The petitioner again submitted application/representation dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure P-13). Thereafter, an order was passed on 22.09.2017 served on the petitioner on 23.09.2017 that her representation dated 13.09.2017 was ordered to be rejected as the benefit of exemption to the in-service candidate is not admissible to her as she could not be treated as in-service candidate. ARGUMENTS

(3.) In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner had removed all the anomalies and the discrepancies pointed out for submission of gap certificate and the data of number of Court cases. Admittedly, the petitioner was in-service during certain period and she being thus, in-service candidate, the criteria regarding clause 2(bb) about 3 years income tax returns would not apply in her case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as a matter of fact, by virtue of the corrigendum dated 17.08.2016 that was issued by respondents itself, the petitioner was exempted from the requirement regarding income tax returns and data of court cases being in-service candidate. The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra and another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna and others, 2016(4) S.C.T. 267 : Civil Appeal No. 7358 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17466 of 2016) and therefore, her candidature could not have been rejected. The reason given by respondent No.2 for rejection of her candidature for want of certain documents regarding eligibility criteria is absolutely false and that she had already furnished those documents. She could be treated as a candidate from Advocate's category. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed.